Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
My point is that classifying a document doesn't make it relevant to national defence. If the document that Clinton wanted declassified was not in fact relevant to national defence, then the law from Cornell didn't apply to it.
As far as I am aware, the material Clinton wanted to see was merely a list of talking points. This doesn't immediately spring to mind as being national defence material.
Um... that law isn't just "national defense materials"... read the whole section.
I have, and as far as I can see, it does all relate to "information respecting the national defense", "anything connected with the national defense", etc.
As well as this the law speaks about "intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States", and so on. Also, "transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it," Obviously Clinton was entitled to receive the information because it was intended for her use.
Therefore, unless the material is real defence material and Clinton intended to hand it to a foreign power or maybe believed it would be intercepted, this section of law does not seem to apply in this case.
As said previously, the actual facts of the case as far as we know them are that Clinton needed a list of talking points for use at a conference or meeting of some kind, and could not get hold of it through the secure fax machine because of a technical problem, so she asked for it to be sent to her a different way. (But apparently it was not sent anyway.)
From what I can see, there isn't really anything substantive in this specific allegation. I am aware there are others being put forward, of course.
The difficulty this is causing me is that Clinton is being accused of some kind of misdealing that when looked at in detail does not seem to be supported by the actual facts. This worries me because if the people throwing up this kind of thing against Clinton had substantiated facts to work with, presumably they would use them. There have been several previous attempts to throw various kinds of supposed mis-dealings on to Clinton that turned out to be essentially incorrect or even fabrications. (Crying wolf, as I termed it earlier on.)
Therefore I hope you can see why I am uneasy in my mind that this one is going to turn out to be another load of smoke and mirrors.
Yeah, I saw the 7 in 10 poll and mentioned it on the previous page (though I didn't link it).
I hope you remember this later. For a long time, you've been saying HRC was unbeatable and that the election would only be a coronation. I want you to remember later that HRC has very high unfavorables, was mired in scandal, and was totally beatable and that the only reason she won, presuming she does, was that the GOP selected the most odious candidate I've ever seen in my life as their nominee.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Yeah, I saw the 7 in 10 poll and mentioned it on the previous page (though I didn't link it).
I hope you remember this later. For a long time, you've been saying HRC was unbeatable and that the election would only be a coronation. I want you to remember later that HRC has very high unfavorables, was mired in scandal, and was totally beatable and that the only reason she won, presuming she does, was that the GOP selected the most odious candidate I've ever seen in my life as their nominee.
You would be correct there!
Hence why I'm hoping for some DNC/RNC convention chaos in nominating the NotTrumps/NotHillary....
Otherwise, HRC will be the next President and I really hope the GOP keeps both the House and Senate.
Unclassified material doesn’t need to be transmitted by secure fax... if the material wasn’t classified, Sullivan would have had them faxed normally.
Right?
With that in mind: HRC ordering aides to remove headers to facilitate the transmission over unsecured means strongly suggests that the information was not unclassified. in addition, removing headers to avoid transmission security would be a violation of 18 USC 793 anyway, which does not require material to be classified... only sensitive to national security.
This is just an EMAIL about what to do with 'faxing' sensitive information across unsecured lines. Simply turning it to "no identifying heading" and send "nonsecured" is a huge no-no.
So, if her operation is that nonchalant about faxing sensitive information... well... you can finish where I'm going with this....
Besides... *the smoking gun* is literally her private email server.
Exactly. There is no legitimate reason for her to have a private email server for SecState business. It was a deliberate move to avoid transparency and accountability. HRC didn't want the public to know how she was running the State Dept. she didn't want her emails on govt servers, didn't want to use a govt email address. Why the secrecy? Was she mixing in personal business like her upcoming presidential campaign or Clinton Foundation business or just making deals/decisions that she didn't want the public to know for public relations reasons? It doesn't matter why she did, it only matters that somebody that concerned with avoiding scrutiny and accountability shouldn't be in public office. If you're going to take public money to serve in public office then you have to be transparent enough for the public to hold you accountable for you actions. If HRC doesn't want the public to know what she's doing as SecState then she is by definition not trustworthy enough to hold the office or any other public office.
Eh, I severely doubt they will keep the Senate, D's tend do much better in the general than the R's. Doubt they will take the house though. Realistically, this means that you get a moderate to replace Scalia (Garland), and Ginsburg gets to retire and have a liberal judge replace her. Because you know she'd just live to 150 out of pure willpower rather than have a conervative, or an anti-abortion judge, replace her.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Eh, I severely doubt they will keep the Senate, D's tend do much better in the general than the R's. Doubt they will take the house though. Realistically, this means that you get a moderate to replace Scalia (Garland), and Ginsburg gets to retire and have a liberal judge replace her. Because you know she'd just live to 150 out of pure willpower rather than have a conervative, or an anti-abortion judge, replace her.
Meh, Rove v Wade won't be overturned anytime soon if ever and even if it did there wouldn't be much practical difference.
My point is that classifying a document doesn't make it relevant to national defence. If the document that Clinton wanted declassified was not in fact relevant to national defence, then the law from Cornell didn't apply to it.
As far as I am aware, the material Clinton wanted to see was merely a list of talking points. This doesn't immediately spring to mind as being national defence material.
Um... that law isn't just "national defense materials"... read the whole section.
I have, and as far as I can see, it does all relate to "information respecting the national defense", "anything connected with the national defense", etc.
As well as this the law speaks about "intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States", and so on. Also, "transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it," Obviously Clinton was entitled to receive the information because it was intended for her use.
Therefore, unless the material is real defence material and Clinton intended to hand it to a foreign power or maybe believed it would be intercepted, this section of law does not seem to apply in this case.
As said previously, the actual facts of the case as far as we know them are that Clinton needed a list of talking points for use at a conference or meeting of some kind, and could not get hold of it through the secure fax machine because of a technical problem, so she asked for it to be sent to her a different way. (But apparently it was not sent anyway.)
From what I can see, there isn't really anything substantive in this specific allegation. I am aware there are others being put forward, of course.
The difficulty this is causing me is that Clinton is being accused of some kind of misdealing that when looked at in detail does not seem to be supported by the actual facts. This worries me because if the people throwing up this kind of thing against Clinton had substantiated facts to work with, presumably they would use them. There have been several previous attempts to throw various kinds of supposed mis-dealings on to Clinton that turned out to be essentially incorrect or even fabrications. (Crying wolf, as I termed it earlier on.)
Therefore I hope you can see why I am uneasy in my mind that this one is going to turn out to be another load of smoke and mirrors.
Again... look at section (f). If you don't think there's nothing there... by all means. I believe I've made mine.
I'll reiterate. The simple existence of Hillary's personal email server *is* evidence that there's something here. That is a lot of work just to have her own, exclusively used communication tool as Secretary of State.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/15 16:35:33
Co'tor Shas wrote: Eh, I severely doubt they will keep the Senate, D's tend do much better in the general than the R's. Doubt they will take the house though. Realistically, this means that you get a moderate to replace Scalia (Garland), and Ginsburg gets to retire and have a liberal judge replace her. Because you know she'd just live to 150 out of pure willpower rather than have a conervative, or an anti-abortion judge, replace her.
Meh, Rove v Wade won't be overturned anytime soon if ever and even if it did there wouldn't be much practical difference.
No, there would be a pretty big differnfence. It would go from states restricting it to extreme amounts to strait up bans. Think SAFE act vs all guns banned.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Hrm, the SAFE act is only one facet, try getting *any* gun in NYC. Obtaining a handgun there is more paperwork and effort than going through Federal channels to buy an anti tank cannon...literally, and can be denied for something as simole as a parking violation, the NYC model is pretty close to a straight up ban the way youd get for Abortion in places like Oklahima if Roe were overturned
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Kilkrazy wrote: Section f relates to national defence, so your argument appears to be wrong.
:sigh: Why do I feel like we're arguing RAWs in YMDC?
d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or ... (f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
I'll submit that it's likely section (d) that her actions falls under more the f), but then again... we don't know exactly what was on the fax itself as it's CLASSIFIED.
She ordered someone to REMOVE the "classification headings" and just send it nonsecured.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/15 16:54:27
I like how you talk out of two sides of your mouth with this. On the one hand, the FBI don't feth around with this. On the other, we might have two sets of laws for those in power and those who aren't. It seems like you are setting yourself up to be correct no matter what the FBI determines to state that you were right.
I'm not talking both sides of my mouth as they're both questions that we need to answer.
Answer me this, if the FBI does not recommend indictment at the end of the day, will you drop all discussion of this email business because "they don't feth around"?
No. Because, we cannot function as a society if the powerful/well connected are implicitedly allowed to get away from breaking the law.
Here's the thing though, if the FBI does not recommend indictment, that would mean they found no evidence of her breaking the law since "they don't feth around". Again, you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. Of course, since you have already determined the outcome, I guess I shouldn't be surprised by your answer.
and yet you have already determined the outcome too, as it goes the whole thing is still under investigation and with the DoJ holding onto information till November (that they said would be released for the investigation in June or July) this smells of coverup and backroom dealing.
as to classification it doesn't matter if it was about what some private ate for lunch if it is classified as Classified it is classified and not to be sent thru unsecured sources, its not a matter of iuf HRC will be charged, but what she will be charged with, will it effect her running for office? hard to say legal wise, will she do time? highly doubt it.
Please don't attach non wargaming images to Dakka. You need to use offsite hosting if you wish to share any such images.
Reds8n
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/06/16 08:24:33
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Eh, I severely doubt they will keep the Senate, D's tend do much better in the general than the R's. Doubt they will take the house though. Realistically, this means that you get a moderate to replace Scalia (Garland), and Ginsburg gets to retire and have a liberal judge replace her. Because you know she'd just live to 150 out of pure willpower rather than have a conervative, or an anti-abortion judge, replace her.
Meh, Rove v Wade won't be overturned anytime soon if ever and even if it did there wouldn't be much practical difference.
No, there would be a pretty big differnfence. It would go from states restricting it to extreme amounts to strait up bans. Think SAFE act vs all guns banned.
I think you over estimate the desire of state legislatures to ban abortion but we can agree to disagree on that. The greater point is that regardless of when Ginsburg retires/dies it is highly unlikely that the complex chain of events needed to overturn the established precedent set by Roe v Wade will come to pass.
Prestor Jon 690357 8716949 nullI wrote:think you over estimate the desire of state legislatures to ban abortion but we can agree to disagree on that. The greater point is that regardless of when Ginsburg retires/dies it is highly unlikely that the complex chain of events needed to overturn the established precedent set by Roe v Wade will come to pass.
I don't see how you can possibly be saying this with a straight face. You're saying you don't think there will be any practical change in abortion rights in the US if Roe v Wade is overturned, and for evidence, you point to the state legislators you don't think want to ban abortion - the same ones that have spent years chipping away at (legal) abortion?
I think the most reasonable, expected outcome of Roe v Wade being overturned is a total ban on abortion in at least 12 states within 90 days.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/06/15 17:42:11
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
@asterios: I haven't determined anything. I am presuming her innocence (as the law demands) until her guilt is proven in a court of law, not a court of public opinion.
Gordon Shumway wrote: @asterios: I haven't determined anything. I am presuming her innocence (as the law demands) until her guilt is proven in a court of law, not a court of public opinion.
but right now its not about total innocence, its about what she is innocent of and not, it all comes down to is how much of a breakdown of security occurred, (and if she sent any classified memos to the DNC) last part is a funny after the year long hacking by Russians on their computers.
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
Gordon Shumway wrote: @asterios: I haven't determined anything. I am presuming her innocence (as the law demands) until her guilt is proven in a court of law, not a court of public opinion.
but right now its not about total innocence, its about what she is innocent of and not, it all comes down to is how much of a breakdown of security occurred, (and if she sent any classified memos to the DNC) last part is a funny after the year long hacking by Russians on their computers.
So what law(s) exactly has she been charged or convicted of here in a court of law that allows you to make this claim? Oh that's right, we aren't even past the recommending indictment stage yet. I'm not saying it isn't possible or even likely that she won't be indicted or that she didn't break laws, but you are putting the cart before the horse here.
Gordon Shumway wrote: @asterios: I haven't determined anything. I am presuming her innocence (as the law demands) until her guilt is proven in a court of law, not a court of public opinion.
but right now its not about total innocence, its about what she is innocent of and not, it all comes down to is how much of a breakdown of security occurred, (and if she sent any classified memos to the DNC) last part is a funny after the year long hacking by Russians on their computers.
So what law(s) exactly has she been charged or convicted of here in a court of law that allows you to make this claim? Oh that's right, we aren't even past the recommending indictment stage yet. I'm not saying it isn't possible or even likely that she won't be indicted or that she didn't break laws, but you are putting the cart before the horse here.
thats what I said evidence shows she did send classified information over a non-secured line, the question is what charges will be levied against her, which depends on the breach of security involved but until the investigation is done we will never know, they may have several things they will bring her up on, but until the full investigation is done no charges will be brought until they know the full scope of the transgressions.
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
Gordon Shumway wrote: @asterios: I haven't determined anything. I am presuming her innocence (as the law demands) until her guilt is proven in a court of law, not a court of public opinion.
but right now its not about total innocence, its about what she is innocent of and not, it all comes down to is how much of a breakdown of security occurred, (and if she sent any classified memos to the DNC) last part is a funny after the year long hacking by Russians on their computers.
So what law(s) exactly has she been charged or convicted of here in a court of law that allows you to make this claim? Oh that's right, we aren't even past the recommending indictment stage yet. I'm not saying it isn't possible or even likely that she won't be indicted or that she didn't break laws, but you are putting the cart before the horse here.
thats what I said evidence shows she did send classified information over a non-secured line, the question is what charges will be levied against her, which depends on the breach of security involved but until the investigation is done we will never know, they may have several things they will bring her up on, but until the full investigation is done no charges will be brought until they know the full scope of the transgressions.
And if/when she is indicted and convicted I will be more than happy to admit she broke the law (because maybe, possibly somehow Biden could get in which would be far preferable) If that doesn't happen, would you be as willing to say she didn't? I somehow don't think so.
Gordon Shumway wrote: @asterios: I haven't determined anything. I am presuming her innocence (as the law demands) until her guilt is proven in a court of law, not a court of public opinion.
but right now its not about total innocence, its about what she is innocent of and not, it all comes down to is how much of a breakdown of security occurred, (and if she sent any classified memos to the DNC) last part is a funny after the year long hacking by Russians on their computers.
So what law(s) exactly has she been charged or convicted of here in a court of law that allows you to make this claim? Oh that's right, we aren't even past the recommending indictment stage yet. I'm not saying it isn't possible or even likely that she won't be indicted or that she didn't break laws, but you are putting the cart before the horse here.
thats what I said evidence shows she did send classified information over a non-secured line, the question is what charges will be levied against her, which depends on the breach of security involved but until the investigation is done we will never know, they may have several things they will bring her up on, but until the full investigation is done no charges will be brought until they know the full scope of the transgressions.
And if/when she is indicted and convicted I will be more than happy to admit she broke the law (because maybe, possibly somehow Biden could get in which would be far preferable) If that doesn't happen, would you be as willing to say she didn't? I somehow don't think so.
to be honest I have no clue about the whole situation nor care, also Biden will not join the race, think he already said that. if Clinton is removed the only option is Sanders. and Sanders is still a wild card, I hear reports of him working with Clinton to stop Trump and consolidate the Democrat party, then I just read a report where he is saying the Democrat party needs to be tore down and reformed with the removal of the DNC head and so forth http://www.politicususa.com/2016/06/14/bernie-sanders-demands-democrats-unreasonable.html , so I still think he will be running independent in this race if not the Democrat choice.
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
Kilkrazy wrote: Section f relates to national defence, so your argument appears to be wrong.
:sigh:
Why do I feel like we're arguing RAWs in YMDC?
d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or ...
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense,
(1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or
(2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
I'll submit that it's likely section (d) that her actions falls under more the f), but then again... we don't know exactly what was on the fax itself as it's CLASSIFIED.
She ordered someone to REMOVE the "classification headings" and just send it nonsecured.
If you don't know what the material was why are you claiming it was military or security secrets that would prejudice the national defence and that Clinton deliberately conspired to reveal it to a foreign power?
Ok, the fact that you are still hoping/thinking Sanders will run independent means you can't be taken seriously anymore.
As to Biden, if Clinton drops out due to indictment after she is declared the primary winner at the convention (and honestly, I don't see how it could happen before given the timelines here) the Democratic Party chair would hold a vote and the winner would fill the seat. He would win that and take it in a heartbeat (as he really wanted to run but wasn't ready because of his son's death). At that point you could pretty much kiss the presidency, Senate, and likely the House goodbye if you are on the GOP's side.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Ok, the fact that you are still hoping/thinking Sanders will run independent means you can't be taken seriously anymore.
As to Biden, if Clinton drops out due to indictment after she is declared the primary winner at the convention (and honestly, I don't see how it could happen before given the timelines here) the Democratic Party chair would hold a vote and the winner would fill the seat. He would win that and take it in a heartbeat (as he really wanted to run but wasn't ready because of his son's death). At that point you could pretty much kiss the presidency, Senate, and likely the House goodbye if you are on the GOP's side.
Oh... i wouldn't be so sure that Sanders wouldn't run as an Independent candidate (Green Party??!?). But, right now.. the DNC is doing everything right to try to bring him into the fold.
As for Biden v. Trump? I agree 100% with your prediction.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Ok, the fact that you are still hoping/thinking Sanders will run independent means you can't be taken seriously anymore.
As to Biden, if Clinton drops out due to indictment after she is declared the primary winner at the convention (and honestly, I don't see how it could happen before given the timelines here) the Democratic Party chair would hold a vote and the winner would fill the seat. He would win that and take it in a heartbeat (as he really wanted to run but wasn't ready because of his son's death). At that point you could pretty much kiss the presidency, Senate, and likely the House goodbye if you are on the GOP's side.
but you are missing the point if such a thing did occur and Biden was selected Sanders would feel slighted then run as independent which would divide the democratic vote maybe not down the middle but enough to cost the Democrats the presidency.
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Ok, the fact that you are still hoping/thinking Sanders will run independent means you can't be taken seriously anymore.
As to Biden, if Clinton drops out due to indictment after she is declared the primary winner at the convention (and honestly, I don't see how it could happen before given the timelines here) the Democratic Party chair would hold a vote and the winner would fill the seat. He would win that and take it in a heartbeat (as he really wanted to run but wasn't ready because of his son's death). At that point you could pretty much kiss the presidency, Senate, and likely the House goodbye if you are on the GOP's side.
but you are missing the point if such a thing did occur and Biden was selected Sanders would feel slighted then run as independent which would divide the democratic vote maybe not down the middle but enough to cost the Democrats the presidency.
He would feel slighted, but Biden and Sanders have a long friendship so I don't know if Sanders would really try to get in his way. Considering that however, I could see Biden refusing it on that basis. Regardless, this is all just wish listing on my part. Wait for the inevitable Clinton indictment first, which should be simple based on how clear it all evidently is.
Prestor Jon 690357 8716949 nullI wrote:think you over estimate the desire of state legislatures to ban abortion but we can agree to disagree on that. The greater point is that regardless of when Ginsburg retires/dies it is highly unlikely that the complex chain of events needed to overturn the established precedent set by Roe v Wade will come to pass.
I don't see how you can possibly be saying this with a straight face. You're saying you don't think there will be any practical change in abortion rights in the US if Roe v Wade is overturned, and for evidence, you point to the state legislators you don't think want to ban abortion - the same ones that have spent years chipping away at (legal) abortion?
I think the most reasonable, expected outcome of Roe v Wade being overturned is a total ban on abortion in at least 12 states within 90 days.
d-usa wrote: The Oklahoma legislature straight up passed a bill this year that said "Any doctor performing an abortion will be charged with murder".
All politics is local and I'm no expert on politics in other localities. However, I do think the estimate of 12 states banning abortion to be overly large. Also, it's easy for politicians to pass bills that they know won't actually change anything. Abortion is still legal in Oklahoma, it's not murder. The state legislature can pass token bills that won't become laws just to have something to use to pander to voters in an election year. If the state legislature really had the power to ban abortion they would find more resistance to such a message than when they don't have that power but want to do something for the sake of playing to their party base. It's been my experience that the "red" and "blue" states I've lived in aren't uniformally "red" and "blue" but have areas of both.
